Posted on 01/09/2016 7:35:03 AM PST by soakncider
Mencken was a putz. As much as he despised northerners he had sneering contempt for the average confederate. What really tripped mencken’s wire were the slavers - the southron aristocrats. He fawned over them, brown-nosed them, and sought to be one of them. But it was always to be a case of being on the outside of the glass looking in for mencken.
A talented writer but an elitist snob, his cynicism often got the better of him and it shows in his critique of the Gettysburg Address. He was like the howard deans or the hillary clintons of the era - desperately wanting to rule but possessing none of the tools or talents do do so. So the next best thing for him was to criticize those who did possess the tools and talents.
It is a bipartisan practice on this thread.
On this thread there is fact and Lost Cause mythology. Don’t confuse the two.
I'm on your side here. I'm not sure that either side is completely correct but I think the traditional history is more accurate than the revisionist history which abounds in Lost Cause circles.
Sure, if you believe that history began with the Battle of Big Bethel, June 10, 1861, where the first Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle, then you might suppose that Civil War didn't begin until the Union invaded the Confederacy.
But in fact, Confederates began threatening and committing acts of military aggression against Union officials from the very week of their first declaration of secession, December 20, 1860 -- seizing forts around Charleston harbor and demanding Sumter's surrender.
So any claim that the Confederacy was not an existential threat against the United States is pure bunk.
Indeed, they went so far as to declare part of the Confederacy states and territories which refused, or had no legal right to declare their secession -- Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, New Mexico.
And before war's end, the Confederacy had invaded or raided into every US state & territory it could reach, including: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma & New Mexico territories, as well as minor insurgent attacks in California, Colorado and Vermont.
In every such invasion, Confederate forces took what they needed, sometimes "paying for", more often not, and always destroying anything reckoned as militarily valuable (i.e., railroad equipment & bridges).
That the Civil War was fought mostly in the South only reflects the Confederacy's lack of military capabilities, not their lack of will to do the Union harm.
Benjamin Holt, John Deere, and Massey Ferguson would have ended slavery.
You mean just like Eli Whitney did?
The cotton gin reduced the manual labor required, so that, and inventions like it, certainly would have eventually ended slavery, along with changing social attitudes.
I have always thought that the Confederates never should have conducted any offensive raids. They were just wrong morally and tactically. They shouldn’t have fired on Fort Sumter either.
Jefferson Davis - President of the Confederate States of America
The introduction of the cotton gin stimulated labor needs. Yes it “automated” a portion of the process but to growers that translated into the opportunity for larger crops (which translated into the need for more laborers, not less).
The election in 1860 was the writing on the wall. It signaled a departure from the status quo. If there was ever to be clarion call to adjust ones thinking and contemplate the possibilities of life without owning people this was it. But there was no “changing social attitudes”. Instead the southron slavers gave their countrymen the finger and a hearty “F-you!”.
Sometimes it takes a sharp rap on the skull to induce an attitude adjustment.
The cotton gin automated one aspect of processing cotton. The tractor automated the rest.
There were many black slave owners. The first slave owner in the new world was black. So slavery wasn’t a white-against-black invention. And don’t forget, slavery was a part of Union from the beginning. There were slaves under the US flag, too.
Does Obama speak for you?
True enough. But every northern state had either instituted abolition or had a defined pathway to emancipation of slaves. Zero southern states had either of those.
Don’t know why, but the inevitable end of slavery in the South seemed to make their ruling class very uncomfortable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impending_Crisis_of_the_South
Does Obama speak for you, or even a majority of Americans?
The end of the Federal Reserve would make our ruling class uncomfortable, too. As would term limits, and yanking their pensions.
Even Alexander Hamilton, the greatest advocate of a strong central
government, stated that the government would never have any right to
coerce a State. Jefferson in his later years took it for granted that the
Union would break up—probably into eastern and western
confederacies. There was nothing wrong with that. The sacred thing
was not the Union but the consent of the people, which might be better
represented in two or three confederacies rather than one. What, after
all, is wrong with Americans creating other Unions if that is what the
people want?
If time allowed I could give you quotations from now until
Christmas proving that the right of secession was clearly understood at
the establishment of the Constitution and for long after. But let me try
to illustrate my point.
In 1720 the people of South Carolina, acting through their own
legislature and militia, exercised their sovereign will by declaring
themselves independent of the Lords Proprietors who claimed to own
their territory. In 1775, acting in the same exercise of their sovereign
will, they threw out the King’s government and became an independent
nation. And they made this good well before the joint Declaration of
Independence by defeating a British attack on Charleston. In 1787 the
people through a convention specially elected to express their sovereign
will considered whether or not to ratify the United States Constitution.
If you believe that government rests on the consent of the people, then
this is the only place the consent could be given. And it was an entirely
free act of a sovereign who could say yea or nay without responsibility
to any other authority. They ratified the Constitution under the
understanding that they were joining in a Union that would be of mutual benefit to all the partners. This was the will of the only
sovereign, the people of each State.
In 1860, the people of South Carolina assembled once more in a
convention and repealed their previous ratification of the Constitution,
which as a sovereign people they were entitled to do. They were now
once more an independent nation as they had been before they had
given their consent to the Union. They did this because the Union was
no longer to their benefit but had become a burden and a danger. They
said: We have acted in good faith and been very patient. But obviously
you people in control of the federal government intend permanently to
exploit our wealth and interfere in our affairs. Our contract with you no
longer serves it purpose of mutual benefit and is hereby dissolved.
As you know, our North Carolina people did not want to bring on
a crisis. They did not rush into secession, though they were never in
doubt about their right. Then Lincoln announced that the legitimate
governments of the seven seceded States were not States at all but are
merely what he called “combinations of lawbreakers.†According to
him, the act of the people was merely a crime problem. Once you had
accepted the federal government the consent of the people could never
be exercised again. He ordered the States to disperse within 30 days and
obey his authority, or else. The issue was now clear for our State and the
sovereign people of North Carolina elected a convention that
unanimously seceded from affiliation with the United States.
Our forefathers were right, and they knew they were right. Their
Lost Cause was a loss for all Americans and for the principle that
governments must rest on the consent of the people. Imagine for a
moment how different our situation would be today if we were able to
get together and disobey the federal government which has usurped our right to consent to our rulers.
But I am of good cheer. One of the bad South-hating historians
recently whined in print that even though he and other brilliant experts
have declared the truth over and over, people still continue to admire
the Confederacy and honour that mythical Lost Cause. Why, people still
write novels and songs about Lee and even about his horse! Why
doesn’t anyone write about Grant and his men like that? That they can’t
understand this tells you what kind of people they are.
Here is our great advantage. Our Confederate ancestors are truly
admirable, and decent people all over the world know it. Let’s always
remember that. -Clyde N. Wilson
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.